Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 19, 2011 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT

3:00 pm
way. d.r. requester has treated them and that may not be possible. but at this point it sounds like i do. i see a continuance coming. if that is your desire, please go ahead and do that. but i echo of words of commissioner borden. but something has to be done. this is the city's process. for the last three years, we have been trying to deal with this issue. so to keep looking back at the wrongs that happened three years after the sinkhole incident when the yes were in extreme dire straits -- commissioner moore: i don't want to interrupt you. i know you feel that way. i truly respect your position on this. the majority as a commission decided we will continue the project and you yourself are very skilled to find the middle ground of where you will talk to each other. that's basically what you're hired to do. i look to you, with a good
3:01 pm
judgment on process to do just that. >> appreciate that, commissioner. what date are we looking at now? >> 22nd. the day available with the full committee. unless the full commission isn't necessary. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i don't want to beat a dead horse but, you see, i don't think these are mistakes we're trying to correct. i think they were deliberately done. if you read the building department's own reports, i mean, they kind of reinforce the fact plans were changed and et cetera, and you know, i don't know for a fact they were done deliberately but from what d.b.i. says, it appears to be that way. in any case, yeah, it's the process, so the process now stops here. and the problem i'm having -- mr. iona, maybe you can answer this question, if the commission
3:02 pm
takes the continuance and goes ahead with the motion that the project sponsor's architect will redesign the project to meet the 1998 plans, guess this is a city attorney question, if we take that motion, does that mean that they are forced into doing exactly what those plans depict? >> well, at what point can they then come back and reapply for a permit that shows the current building? just for clarity, that's why i got up and asked for clarity about what the commission was directing. but what i am hearing is that the motion is to continue in order for the project sponsor to revise their project to -- to redesign their building to comply with the '98 condition
3:03 pm
that was approved in 1998. i am also hearing in the meantime until september 22, if there is an alteration that is somewhere in the middle that can be achieved that the d.r. requester is satisfied with and the d.r. is withdrawn, that it doesn't need to come back here. that's what i'm hearing. commissioner sugaya: if that's part of the motion -- >> it's not part of the motion but what would happen if it occurred. >> if the d.r. is withdrawn, you wouldn't have any jurisdiction. >> that's why i'm not going to vote for the continueance. >> you take the d.v. and take the plans and get that or choose this process and they can do whatever they want. unless somebody files a d.r. commissioner sugaya: that's what i mean. it doesn't work for me. >> we have a motion before us and we will vote on it. >> but your motion was to take
3:04 pm
d.r. and have two alternatives? >> no, my motion -- i said initially i either would support take d.r. and require that the project be built to 1998 or a continueance to allow that work -- the plan to come back for us to see it and do all of that sort of stuff. it seemed like people were more in favor of a continueance than to take d.r. and require that. but the only way to really get the 1998 plans is take d.r. and make that requirement because that's a decision that we have jurisdiction over. if we don't do that, if we do continue it like we're planning to do, yes, if the d.r. requester pulls their d.r. and nobody files a new d.r., it wouldn't come back to us. that wasn't my intent. my intent was to find a way to solve it today. so if people have an interest to see the plans built out and want 100% certainty on that fact, the best approach would be to take d.r. and require that and then we would be done with it today. i'm fine with that.
3:05 pm
i withdraw the motion if people want to do that because my goal really was to see this get resolved today. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: that would be the direction i would like to go. >> nobody made that motion initially. that's why i brought up the two options, take d.r. of the 1998 plans or take d.r. -- or continue rather. i'm fine to withdraw the continuance motion if my seconder doesn't mind, if somebody wants to make a new motion on the floor to take d.r. >> commissioners, if you withdraw the motion to continue and take d.r. deny the project is on the floor. >> well, i will withdraw it or change it. >> i will withdraw the continuance motion. >> the motion to continue has been withdrawn. and motion to approve is
3:06 pm
withdrawn? >> yes. >> we have no motion on the floor? >> the motion is to take d.r. and revert to the 1998 plans. >> second. >> well, this is even worse. i was going to vote against a continuance because our job is to take d.r. if there are unusual and extraordinary impacts. there are no impacts. what we're doing is punitive, which should not be our place to do. we should be deciding whether the d.r. is warranted. i don't think it is. present plans are extremely well done. we have spent a lot of the city's time to get this design the right way. this is one reason why people get frustrated because this is a very frustrating process that i'm sure happens elsewhere but it certainly happens here often. so i would urge other commissioners to vote against why revert back to the early plans? this is a situation where we had a sinkhole where things happen
3:07 pm
that no one could anticipate and what you have is ultimately a much better and more contextual building that has been worked out between the staff and the project sponsor with no impacts that i can see to the d.r. requester. so we're wasting a lot of time on this. i would not support the motion. >> commissioner miguel? commissioner moore: start over again because i'm going to move to continue. i will explain why and hope to get a second. i'm -- >> second. >> i'm not necessarily satisfied with the original plan. i'm not saying the present plans are the improvement to happen. i think waiting until september and having the parties forced to work together knowing the tenor as a commission as it is, is
3:08 pm
probably the way to go. my biggest problem is this, is someone who is in the field basically altering plans after their approved. i mean, that just wrangles me no amount and i don't know how to punish that because that is one of the worst violations that can possibly be revealed in front of this commission. so i'm not worried about the time delay the least. what i'm worried about is whether or not this building which is so prominent, which is one of the seven entrances to the presidio, in a major area of
3:09 pm
san francisco, appears correctly. and that's the important thing, as far as i'm concerned. i'm going to move to continue, appreciate the second, in order to get what we should get. i don't know any other way to get it. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i have two questions. if we go the way commissioner miguel is suggesting, this was not even the architect from 1998. there's a big hole there. i'm prepared to go back to the 1998 overall envelope description with whoever's architect designing it what needs to be. i don't care. but something will have to probably change between that 1998 -- >> is that to the project sponsor or architect, you're giving that instruction? >> yes. and i would still think that the
3:10 pm
repeat of this commission in september is warranted because we're going down a very siply slope given the history of this project. i would like a present of all of us to support what we still, as commissioner miguel just summarized quite well, is unacceptable to us. we're here to support it under certain conditions. and those are go back to '98 overall envelope description, the architect take it's wherever he needs to take it and we will look at it one more time and send it on its merry way. >> commissioner sugaya? >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for continuance until september 22. i did not hear the maker of the motion give instructions on what you're expecting? >> i'm expecting a new project to emerge. >> with a new project emerging. on that motion, commissioner ant
3:11 pm
nene? >> commissioner ant nene: no. >> commissioner borden:? >> aye. >> commissioner fong:? >> that's kind of a broad direction but aye. >> commissioner moore:? >> aye. commissioner sugaya: no. >> thank you, that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners ant teeny and sugaya voting against. the item is continued until september 22 with a new project emerging. on the variance -- >> yes, we will continue the variance of the same case. >> madam president,/we can take a short recess. president o'brien: we need -- president owe laying: we will
3:12 pm
take a ten-minute recess. >> we will ask you not to take the next item next. >> that's correct. >> the commission has taken a ten-minute recess. when we come back, we will take item 11 out of order. thank you.
3:13 pm
3:14 pm
3:15 pm
3:16 pm
3:17 pm
3:18 pm
3:19 pm
3:20 pm
3:21 pm
3:22 pm
3:23 pm
3:24 pm
3:25 pm
3:26 pm
3:27 pm
3:28 pm
3:29 pm